Oh this will be good news for my next upgrade as I need a decent Video Editing PC now.
This and Nvidias Fermi GPU
You get paid waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
**Official i9 discussion thread ** Core i9 6 cores
- Thread starter straxusii
- Start date
You get paid waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much
the impression i get with games, (not sure you will all agree with me here) they always seem to be manufactured with the consoles in mind first. Apart from crysis which has awfull coding and football manager, it would be nice to see games deveolped to get the most out of pc technology.
If im wrong about this then by all means correct me
Eh?
Anybody who can just come out and say "oh goody i'll pick up one of these and a Fermi" without hesitation so maybe about £1500 of spend gets paid way too much in my books.
Or were you not being serious?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,220
- Location
- Billericay, UK
the impression i get with games, (not sure you will all agree with me here) they always seem to be manufactured with the consoles in mind first. Apart from crysis which has awfull coding and football manager, it would be nice to see games deveolped to get the most out of pc technology.
If im wrong about this then by all means correct me
From what I understand of directx 11 it will be a lot easier for developers to make games that can use all multiple core CPU's so games that can use 4 or more cores might actually come around quicker then you realise.
The XBox 360 has three physical cores each of which appears as two logical cores. That means that in order to get the most out of the hardware, games for that platform need to be written to use 6 threads. Similarly the Cell processor in the PS3 absolutely requires games to be written to use several threads effectively. It's not the console market that's holding things back with regard to multi-threading.
The code that works with DirectX is only a small part of a game engine. To put a very rough figure on it, maybe 10% of a game's code could benefit from this. Sure, it's great if DirectX plays nicely and enables the parts of a game engine that call it to make use of several cores more easily, but that doesn't mean it is "a lot easier" for developers. The whole of the rest of their game engine will still have to be designed with several threads in mind and DirectX can't help with that. Not only that but it's going to be a while before the majority of developers can really expect to be designing exclusively with DirectX 11 in mind. There is too much DirectX 10, and even DirectX 9, hardware out there for that to be an option for a while to come. I guess what I'm really saying here is that people shouldn't expect miracles from DirectX 11.
Edit: I forgot my original point! I'd love a 6-core CPU. It would improve my productivity considerably as I spend far too much of my time waiting for code to compile and the more cores the compiler has to work with the less I'd have to wait. At that price, though, it simply isn't going to happen. It's cheaper for me to run two quad-core PCs side by side, which is what I'm likely to be doing for the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 2,925
- Location
- West Midlands
Is the core i9 ideal for editing and stuff? Would it be worth it for gaming? i have the core i7 which i love.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
I know what you mean - CPUs depreciate like there's no tomorrow. Just look at the FX-60, was an amazing chip for it's time. Must have been £500 or more new? Well i know a guy who just got a whole rig with one in for £50 :/
You could build a very nice rig for that.lol
I mean it may be beneficial for a few people for work but the majority will be sold to enthusiasts who must have to much money to get a few extra numbers on there benchmark scores.lol
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 138
Whats happened to your 920? im thinking of getting one
Where do you start - it's got 50% more cores and is 50% faster in multi-core optimised programmes - wow
Given that the chip alone is going to cost more than a decent system, you would get considerably better bang for buck getting a second Quad core - you'd get 100% more performance for less cash!Besides... I thought GPGPU was supposed to make raw CPU grunt an irrelevance, you could buy 2x5970s in XFire for about the same and (when the software is sorted) get a considerably bigger boost to your transcoding (not to mention the games improvement!)
Now... if the 32nm process turns out to be an overclocking legend on the other hand... that's a different story, and one I'd like to read about!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I get what you're saying and only really have a case of semantics to argue, yes you're correct in saying in order to get the very most out of the 360 you need at least 3 threads and maybe 6(I don't know enough about its version of hyperthreading to know if its actually faster to have 3 threads perfectly using all the hardware, or forcing 2 threads through each core is better). However, games don't have to be written to use 6 threads, I'm sure they are at least writen for 3 main threads, many games probably trying their best to use 6, but they don't have to be.
Getting the MOST out of the hardware, and getting whats needed are very different things. Considering the Cell's supposed massive advantage in power, even if its hard to code for if we were really cpu limited in games then the Sony would pretty much always give better framerates and game effects(physics and so on), it would be the platform of choice to program on and the 360 wouldn't be able to keep up. The fact that games are often(from what I see) better on the 360, suggests the supposed massive difference in available cpu power, doesn't matter in the slightest.
The simple fact is this cpu at £1k isn't a viable option for most people, if less than 0.2% of the gamers on the planet will have one in their computer, games won't require one, nor run badly on a quad and only great on a £1k cpu.
Meaning we simply won't have games that need 6 cores till really, after 6/8 cores becomes almost standard. Which is another reason why cheaper new 4-8 core cpu's from Bulldozer and Intel's new architecture are really the next upgrade of choice for most people.
AS you said, the few people that really need that power, can probably use 2 quad core systems more effectively, or a server setup with 2 quads in it, both could be quite a bit cheaper and offer more overall power, which almost strictly limits the 6 core £1k cpu to those who have more money than sense, or for some bizarre reason can only run a single socket system and only a single system.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,064
Exactly. That`s a chip aimed at server initially, people would
be mad and stupid to buy that for a desktop. Not many apps use four cores now, and those that do often don`t use 100% of each. In games for example the graphics card is the limiting point these days with the current range of quads.
It`s nice to be future proof for as long as possible, but a grand is waaaayy out there.
Why don`t intel combine two quads (like they did with the core 2quads) and have an eight core albeit larger processor
. Two i5`s = £300 or lessSlighty incorrect - I'm a "desktop user" and use my quad core and 8GB of RAM. I'm editing HD videos in Adobe Pr and the next machine I build/buy will have 12GB/16GB of RAM and this new i9
Nothing at all, hence I can buy new and sell it.
32 nm = better overclock.
Mine only goes up to 3.8 Ghz, thats the problem. I wanted 4.2 Ghz
.I always sell and buy new every time new stuff comes out, I actually end up spending the same as I would from upgrading every 2-3 years
.I like to get rid of what I have before it depreciates basically, and I want a shiny new 32 nm chip to play with
.Im an upgradaholic.
Last edited:
You're describing a workstation for all intents and purposes there, not a desktop. In reality only someone with a lot of cash to throw around would buy a setup such as yours for what you are doing, most professionals would not be running a £1k processor either, they would just wait longer - it's cheaper.
I can understand getting 12 Gb in a home PC when you can get it for around £200 or less in the past, but I doubt that anyone really would spend £1000 on a CPU.
Most enthusiast and high end users would rather buy the cheapest one of a particular series and overclock it instead.
Most enthusiast and high end users would rather buy the cheapest one of a particular series and overclock it instead.
As my main use for my current rig is gaming i don't think an i7 at 4Ghz will hold me back for a good while yet untill gaming/software catches up. 6 cores is nice to have, but by the time gaming/software gets round to utilising it properly some new hardware will be just round the corner and we'll all be talking about that then.